Both parties rely on Pippy v. Winslow, 62 Or. 219, 125 P. 298 (1914). In Gabriel v. Corkum et al, 183 Or. 679, 196 P.2d 437 (1948), this court relied upon Pippy for holding that Gabriel, the owners of property in a mechanic's lien foreclosure case, was estopped from claiming nonperformance of the contract for the purpose of invalidating the lien when there was no evidence that Gabriel or the architect objected to the manner in which the improvements were made until after the contractor ceased work on the project. The facts in this case are similar.

Plaintiff's proof was to the effect that there were two agreements with regard to the drilling of the one well and the court did not err in so instructing the jury. In Gabriel v. Corkum, 183 Or. 679, 196 P.2d 437, 442, the court said: "It is stated in Boisot on Mechanics' Liens, § 82, p. 88, as follows: `The owner's refusal to pay an installment of the contract price when due is such a violation of the contract on his part as will justify the contractor in refusing to go on with the contract.

And this apparently was not justified. It follows, therefore, that any "abandonment" was not a voluntary act of plaintiff and that plaintiff did not "abandon" the contract but that defendant breached the same. Such "abandonment" would be justified. Gabriel v. Corkum, 183 Or. 679, 196 P.2d 437. The fact plaintiff left quantities of materials and equipment on the premises indicates he intended to continue until the job was completed. As to the claim of inclusion of nonlienable items.

Plaintiff, citing Ralph Allen, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 279 Or. 71, 566 P.2d 872 (1977), argues that the Petticords, not having objected to the manner of construction prior to the time they terminated B D, are estopped from claiming a lack of substantial performance and invalidating the lien. In Lumpkin, the court relied for its holding on Gabriel v. Corkum et al, 183 Or. 679, 196 P.2d 437 (1948), which in turn had relied on Pippy v. Winslow, supra. In Pippy v. Winslow, a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien, the court noted that Winslow, the owner, was an experienced contractor who "practically superintended the construction for some time," and held that under those circumstances any objection should have been exercised promptly.